Updating preferences with multiple priors
By Eran Hanany, Peter Klibanoff. 2006
196 citations recorded by the source corpus.
We propose and axiomatically characterize dynamically consistent update rules for decision making under ambiguity. These rules apply to the preferences with multiple priors of Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989), and are the first, for any model of preferences over acts, to be able to reconcile typical behavior in the face of ambiguity (as exemplified by Ellsberg’s paradox) with dynamic consistency for all non-null events. Updating takes the form of applying Bayes’ rule to subsets of the set of priors, where the specific subset depends on the preferences, the conditioning event, and the choice problem (i.e., a feasible set of acts together with an act chosen from that set).
Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f2cf54440d1c52042ee1cdcf70733de8a27d7c26
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Artificial Intelligence
- Massimo Marinacci
- Peter Klibanoff
- Eran Hanany
- Simon Grant
- David Kelsey
- Sujoy Mukerji
- Fabio Maccheroni
- Jürgen Eichberger
In Economics and Econometrics
- Peter Klibanoff
- Marciano M. Siniscalchi
- Massimo Marinacci
- Eran Hanany
- Fabio Maccheroni
- Sujoy Mukerji
- M. Machina
- Nabil I. Al-Najjar
In General Decision Sciences
- Peter Klibanoff
- Marciano M. Siniscalchi
- Massimo Marinacci
- Eran Hanany
- Fabio Maccheroni
- M. Machina
- Sujoy Mukerji
- Nabil I. Al-Najjar
Citations in the corpus
- Updating Choquet Beliefs (2007, background): “For example, Hanany and Klibanoff (2006) relax consequentialism by dropping the former while retaining the latter.”
- THE AMBIGUITY AVERSION LITERATURE: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT (2009, background): “A third approach to overcome the updating paradoxes is that proposed by Hanany and Klibanoff ((2007) and (2008)).”
- Recursive smooth ambiguity preferences (2009, background): “Recursive Smooth Ambiguity Preferences Peter Klibanoff Massimo Marinacci Sujoy Mukerji TH E CA RL O A LB ER TO N O TE BO O KS No.17, August 2006* www.collegiocarloalberto.it *Revised in August 2008 Recursive Smooth Ambiguity Preferences1 Peter Klibano¤ MEDS Dept., Kellogg School of Management, North”
- Updating Ambiguity Averse Preferences (2009, methodology): “See Hanany and Klibano¤ [20] for proof in the MEU case.”
- Dynamic variational preferences (2006, background): “[10] E. Hanany, P. Klibanoff, Updating preferences with multiple priors, Mimeo, 2005.”
- Ambiguity and Ambiguity Aversion (2014, background): “One such alternative was advocated by Hanany and Klibanoff (2007,2009), who adapt arguments first proposed by Machina (1989) in the context of risky choice.”